Health & Fitness

Anna Heinrich and husband Tim Robards have welcomed their first child together, a daughter called Elle. 

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3kv2ELt

A new study found that the first four months of the Minnesota Mobile Resuscitation Consortium (MMRC) was 100% effective in cannulation for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests. Cannulation is when tubes are placed in large veins and arteries in the legs, neck or chest in a patient by a health care provider.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/38Fflkt

The drug has not yet made it to human trials for multiple sclerosis, but scientists are urging their colleagues to move cautiously.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2K7VYGH

Losing a few kilograms in weight almost halves people's risk of developing Type 2 diabetes - according to a large scale research study. The research shows how providing support to help people with prediabetes make small changes to their lifestyle, diet and physical activity can almost halve the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. The findings come from the largest diabetes prevention research study in the world in the last 30 years. The clinical trial involved >1,000 people with prediabetes.

from Diet and Weight Loss News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3nkAnci

A brain chemical called noradrenaline is responsible for our responses to uncertain situations - helping us to learn quickly and adapt our behavior, a new study has found.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/32Hhats

In a screening for a functional impact to the neuronal differentiation process, researchers identified a specific circular RNA, circZNF827, which surprisingly 'taps the brake' on neurogenesis. The results provide an interesting example of co-evolution of a circRNA, and its host-encoded protein product, that regulate each other's function, to directly impact the fundamental process of neurogenesis.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UprrGb

Losing a few kilograms in weight almost halves people's risk of developing Type 2 diabetes - according to a large scale research study. The research shows how providing support to help people with prediabetes make small changes to their lifestyle, diet and physical activity can almost halve the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. The findings come from the largest diabetes prevention research study in the world in the last 30 years. The clinical trial involved >1,000 people with prediabetes.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3nkAnci

A computer vision technology developed by engineers has now been developed into a free mobile phone app for regular monitoring of glucose levels in people with diabetes.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/32HlBEq

For over 20 years, researchers have tried to solve the medical mystery behind Mesoamerican Nephropathy, a form of chronic kidney disease that has caused more than 50,000 deaths in coastal South America. Now, researchers present the strongest evidence to date on the cause of the disease in one of the worst-hit hotspots in the region, Nicaragua, using an unlikely source, the toenails of individuals with the disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3lv1QHF

Innovative research has shed light on the mysterious role of long non-coding RNAs in the development of pancreatic cancer and suggests potential new targets for precision cancer therapies.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3knyD00

Three effective forms of birth control contain the hormone estrogen: the birth control patch, combined hormonal birth control pills, and a vaginal ring. Doctors have typically recommended that women avoid birth control with estrogen if they have high blood pressure, which current US guidelines define as 130 mm Hg systolic pressure and 80 mm Hg diastolic pressure, or higher. A recent clinical update in JAMA clarifies whether it’s safe for some women with high blood pressure to use these forms of birth control.

Why does blood pressure matter when choosing birth control?

Birth control containing estrogen can increase blood pressure. When women who have high blood pressure use these birth control methods, they have an increased risk of stroke and heart attack compared with women who do not have high blood pressure. However, their actual chances of having a stroke or a heart attack are still quite low.

When considering birth control options, it’s important to also weigh the possible risks of an unintended pregnancy. A woman who has a history of high blood pressure before she becomes pregnant is more likely to experience

• preeclampsia, a pregnancy complication that can affect liver and kidney function and can even lead to eclampsia, or seizures
• diabetes during pregnancy
• blood clots
• heart attack

She’s also at higher risk for problems with fetal growth and preterm birth.

Why are recommendations around blood pressure and birth control being updated?

When US blood pressure guidelines changed in 2017, many more people were diagnosed with high blood pressure. That happened because the new guidelines tightened standards, as follows:

• normal blood pressure is less than 120 (systolic)/80 (diastolic) mm Hg
• elevated blood pressure is between 120 and 129 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 80 mm Hg (diastolic)
• high blood pressure is 130 mm Hg (systolic) and 80 mm Hg (diastolic) or higher.

With these updated definitions, nearly half of American adults have high blood pressure. Black women are at particularly high risk: more than half of Black women over the age of 19 are diagnosed with high blood pressure.

If a woman has high blood pressure, the JAMA update recommends weighing three factors before starting an estrogen-containing birth control: a woman’s age, control of blood pressure, and any other risks for heart disease.

• Safe to use birth control containing estrogen: If women are 35 years old or younger, have well controlled blood pressure, and are healthy, estrogen-containing birth control can be used. Be sure to have a health professional check blood pressure within one month of starting this type of birth control. Additionally, routine blood pressure checks are recommended twice a year.
• Should avoid birth control containing estrogen: If women are older than 35, even if they have well controlled blood pressure, estrogen-containing birth control should be avoided. Similarly, women of any age who have multiple risk factors for heart disease or who have uncontrolled high blood pressure should not use birth control containing estrogen. These women also should not use the birth control shot (Depo-Provera) because it may increase cholesterol and lead to an increased risk of stroke, according to the review. (This medication contains a different hormone called progestin.)

The JAMA update reviewed evidence based on an older definition of high blood pressure in the context of birth control use. Further research is needed to better understand how different ranges of blood pressure might affect women using birth control that contains estrogen. However, it’s unlikely that these recommendations would change further based on the newer definition of high blood pressure.

Which birth control methods do not contain estrogen?

So, what can women who are unable to use birth control containing estrogen use to prevent pregnancy? The good news is that there are a variety of other birth control methods available, both hormonal and nonhormonal.

• The most reliable forms of birth control without estrogen are the copper intrauterine device (IUD), the hormonal IUD, the implant, and sterilization for women or men.
• Nonhormonal methods include the copper IUD, condoms for men or women, cervical cap, and diaphragm.
• Three progestin-only hormonal methods are safe to use: the minipill, the birth control implant, or the hormonal IUD. However, the birth control shot (Depo-Provera) is not recommended for women who have poorly controlled high blood pressure.

If you do have high blood pressure, exercise and dietary changes remain an important component of maintaining your heart health. Discuss with your doctor which birth control options might be best for you, so that you and your doctor can engage in shared decision-making about your preferences.

See the Harvard Health Birth Control Center for more information on options.

The post Birth control and high blood pressure: Which methods are safe for you? appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/2UsLBik

The “battle of the bulge” gained a new foe this year: quarantine snacking. Sales of snack foods like cookies and crackers shot up in the early days of lockdowns, and recent consumer surveys are finding that people have changed their eating habits and are snacking more.

We don’t yet have solid evidence that more snacking and consumption of ultra-processed food this year has led to weight gain. While memes of the “quarantine 15” trended on social media earlier this year, only a few small studies have suggested a link between COVID-19-related isolation and weight gain. But you don’t need scientific evidence to know if your waistband is tighter.

Snacking is not just a weight risk

Regular junk food snacking brings many risks. Processed foods are typically filled with loads of unhealthy saturated fats and high amounts of salt, calories, added sugar, and refined (unhealthy) grains.

Eating too much of these foods can lead to increased blood sugar (which raises the risk for diabetes), constipation, or an increased LDL cholesterol level (which boosts the risk for heart disease).

What you can do

If your snacking habits are off the rails, here are some tips to get back on track.

• Keep junk food out of the house. Without junk food lying around, you won’t be tempted to eat it.
• Plan healthy snacks. Stock your refrigerator and pantry with healthy snack foods such as fat-free Greek yogurt, berries, chopped vegetables, nuts (walnuts, almonds), hummus, or whole wheat crackers. Plan your daily snacks in advance, so you’ll be more likely to snack wisely.
• Zero in on hunger. Before snacking, ask yourself whether you’re hungry or just thirsty. A good way to tell: drink an eight-ounce glass of water and then wait 10 to 15 minutes. If you’re still hungry, have a healthy snack.
• Know your cravings. Are you hungry, or are you lonely, bored, or stressed? Food won’t fix the problem. Instead, go for a walk around the block, put on some music, or choose another activity that might distract you or boost your mood. If you still want food, eat only a small amount.
• Don’t skip meals. This can make you so hungry later in the day that you’re vulnerable to devouring mega-portions of snack food to supply your body with easily digested sugars.
• Don’t eat straight from the bag or carton. If you snack on an open bag of crackers or a tub of frozen yogurt, you may eat more than a single serving. Instead, portion out your serving in a dish.
• Eat mindfully. Turn off the TV, put down your phone, and pay attention to your snack. Savoring a piece of fine chocolate can be more satisfying than mindlessly gobbling down a whole chocolate bar.
• Prepare for snacks away from home. Plan ahead and keep a healthy snack in your bag or car. That way you won’t turn in desperation to calorie-laden cookies or vending machines.

The post Quarantine snacking fixer-upper appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/2UnbzDU

A new study shows that nearly one in five parents of food-allergic kids are the target of bullying by a multitude of sources.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3po2oBz

Elite runners need a specific combination of physiological abilities to have any chance of running a sub-two-hour marathon, new research shows.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ptg2TQ

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the clarion call has been to test, test and test some more. However, right from the start, serious questions arose about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.

Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.

This, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and aren't designed to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, has even gone on record stating¹ that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to "manufacture a 'second wave' based on 'new cases,'" when in fact a second wave is highly unlikely.

Understanding PCR Tests

Before his death, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it's incapable of diagnosing disease. A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. As noted in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and prevention publication on coronavirus and PCR testing dated July 13 2020:²

• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

So, what does the PCR test actually tell us? The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle.

Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified, yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.

What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads "positive," even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. As a result of these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise.

We've also had problems with faulty and contaminated tests. As soon as the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 became available in January 2020, German researchers quickly developed a PCR test for the virus.

In March 2020, The New York Times³ reported the initial test kits developed by the CDC had been found to be flawed. The Verge also reported⁴ that this flawed CDC test in turn became the basis for the WHO's test, which the CDC ended up refusing to use.

PCR Tests Cannot Detect Infection

Perhaps most importantly of all, the PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones. What that means is that PCR tests cannot detect infection. Period. It cannot tell you whether you're currently ill, whether you'll develop symptoms in the near future, or whether you're contagious.

The tests may pick up dead debris or inactive viral particles that pose no risk whatsoever to the patient and others. What's more, the test can pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you've recuperated from a common cold in the past.

An "infection" is when a virus penetrates into a cell and replicates. As the virus multiplies, symptoms set in. A person is only infectious if the virus is actually replicating. As long as the virus is inactive and not replicating, it's completely harmless both to the host and others.

Chances are, if you have no symptoms, a positive test simply means it has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This would also mean that you are not contagious and pose no risk to anyone.

For all of these reasons, a number of highly respected scientists around the world are now saying that what we have is not a COVID-19 pandemic but a PCR test pandemic. In his September 20, 2020, article⁵ "Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics — The Deadly Danger of False Positives," Yeadon explains why basing our pandemic response on positive PCR tests is so problematic.

In short, it appears millions of people are simply being found to carry inactive viral DNA that pose no risk to anyone, yet these test results are being used by the global technocracy to implement a brand new economic and social system based on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls.

Artificially Created Justifications for Totalitarian Controls

As reported by The Vaccine Reaction, September 29, 2020:⁶

"The test's threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It's like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.⁷

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90% of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found⁸ …

'We've been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that's all,' Dr. Mina said. 'We're using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.'

But 'yes' or 'no' isn't good enough, he added. It's the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient's next steps. 'It's really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,' Dr. Mina said."

Again, medical experts agree any cycle threshold over 35 cycles makes the test too sensitive, as at that point it starts picking up harmless inactive DNA fragments. Mina believes a more reasonable cutoff would be 30 or less.

According to The New York Times,⁹ the CDC's own calculations show it's extremely unlikely to detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles, and research¹⁰ published in April 2020 concluded patients with positive PCR tests that had a cycle threshold above 33 were not contagious and could safely be discharged from the hospital or home isolation.

Importantly, when officials at the New York state laboratory, the Wadsworth Center, reanalyzed testing data at The Times' request, they found that changing the threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated about 43% of the positive results. Limiting it to 30 cycles eliminated a whopping 63%.¹¹ The Vaccine Reaction adds:¹²

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. 'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,' he said.

'I'm really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high CT value results,' said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. 'Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing'¹³ …

In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn't need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test [BinaxNOW] will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.¹⁴

The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus's genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do.¹⁵"

Massive Waste of Resources

As noted by Dr. Tom Jefferson and professor Carl Henegan in an October 31, 2020, article in the Daily Mail,¹⁶ mass PCR testing has been a massive waste or resources, as it doesn't provide us with the information we actually need to know — who's infectious, how far is the virus spreading and how fast does it spread?

Instead, it has led to economic devastation from business shutdowns and isolating noninfectious people in their homes for weeks and months on end. Jefferson and Henegan claim they shared their pandemic response plan with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson over a month ago, and just presented it to him again. "We urge him to pay attention and embrace it," they write, adding:

"There are only two things about which we can be certain: first, that lockdowns do not work in the long term … The idea that a month of economic hardship will permit some sort of 'reset', allowing us a brighter future, is a myth. What, when it ends, do we think will happen? Meanwhile, ever-increasing restrictions will destroy lives and livelihoods.

The second certainty is this: that we need to find a way out of the mess that does no more damage than the virus itself … Our strategy would be to tackle the four key failings."

These four areas are:

1. Addressing the problems in the government's mass testing program
2. Addressing "the blight of confused and contradictory statistics"
3. Protect and isolate the vulnerable — primarily the elderly, but also hospitalized patients in general and staff — while allowing the rest to maintain "some semblance of normal life"
4. Inform the public about the true and quantifiable costs of lockdown that "kill people just as surely as COVID-19"

"If we do these things, there is real hope that we can learn to live with the virus. That, after all, was supposed to be the plan," Jefferson and Henegan note. With regard to testing, the pair call "for a national program of testing quality control to ensure that results are accurate, precise and consistent."

Importantly, we must not rely on positive/negative readings alone. The results must be assessed in relation to other factors, such as the age of the subject and whether they are symptomatic, to determine who actually poses an infectious risk. You can review the full details of their proposed plan at the end of their Daily Mail article.¹⁷

Lockdown Dangers Have Been Kept Out of Public Discussion

Jefferson and Henegan aren't the only ones highlighting the fact that the global lockdown strategy is causing more harm and destruction than the virus itself. In a June 16, 2020 article in The Federalist, James Lucas, a New York City attorney, wrote:¹⁸

"If we're going to allow models and modelers to dictate the entire nature of our society, one would hope that the models are as complete as possible. Yet the epidemiological models that have so transformed our world are seriously incomplete, and therefore fundamentally inadequate.

Any medical therapy is supposed to be tested for both efficacy and safety. There have been several studies¹⁹ examining the effectiveness of the lockdowns in combating the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with mixed conclusions.

So far, however, none of these studies or models have analyzed the safety side of the lockdown therapy. In response to questions from physician Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy, Dr. Anthony Fauci admits²⁰ this side of the equation has not been accounted for in the models now driving our world.

As noted in an open letter²¹ recently signed by more than 600 health-care professionals, the public health costs from the lockdowns — described as a 'mass casualty incident' are real and growing.

These models are estimations based on existing research. The constantly changing projections of coronavirus deaths are extrapolations from research on previous epidemics. Yet modelers have no excuse for leaving evaluations of the lockdowns' massive costs to public health out of their models."

The Hidden Costs of Lockdowns

How does the "lockdown therapy" affect public safety? In his article, Lucas highlights the following:²²

Who Pays the Most?

As noted by Lucas, in addition to calculating the overall costs on society, modelers must also determine "on whom those costs fall," because the costs are not borne equally by all. The consequences of the lockdowns disproportionally affect those who are already the most vulnerable — financially and health wise — such as those living near the poverty line, the chronically ill, people with mental illness and minorities in general.

"Contrary to the PR slogan, we are NOT all in this together," Lucas writes.³⁰ "We need less insipid pro-lockdown propaganda extolling the virtues of the 'essential' workers, and more serious analysis of the enormous public health toll the lockdowns are imposing on them. Otherwise, we may come to see the era of coronavirus as simply the time where pro-lockdown elites sacrificed the working class³¹ to protect themselves."

A Pandemic of Fearmongering

An October 28, 2020, article featured by the Ron Paul Institute points out that:³²

"Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry.

But the facts and the science simply don't support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land. Yes, we do have a pandemic, but it' a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact."

Nine facts that can be backed up with data "paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens," the article states. In addition to the fact that PCR testing is practically useless, for all the reasons already mentioned, these data-backed facts include:

15,000 Doctors and Scientists Call for End to Lockdowns

All in all, there are many reasons to suspect that continued lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates are completely unnecessary and will not significantly alter the course of this pandemic illness, or the final death count.

And, with regard to universal PCR testing where individuals are tested every two weeks or even more frequently, whether they have symptoms or not, this is clearly a pointless effort that yields useless data. It's just a tool to spread fear, which in turn allows for the rapid implementation of the totalitarian control mechanisms required to pull off The Great Reset. Fortunately, more and more people are now starting to see through this plot.

About 45,000 scientists and doctors worldwide have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration,⁴⁰ which calls for the end to all lockdowns and implementation of a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, meaning governments should allow people who are not at significant risk of serious COVID-19 illness to go back to normal life, as the lockdown approach is having a devastating effect on public health — far worse than the virus itself.^41,42 The declaration states:⁴³

"Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health …

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to coronavirus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this focused protection."

The declaration points out that current lockdown policies will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class. As of November 5, 2020, The Great Barrington Declaration⁴⁴ had been signed by 11,791 medical and public health scientists, 33,903 medical practitioners and 617,685 "concerned citizens."⁴⁵

from Articles https://ift.tt/3poVJqS
via IFTTT

Eating fruits such as avocados, apples and berries may support your metabolic health, lowering your risk of Type 2 diabetes and supporting healthy blood pressure.

At the core of the condition, Type 2 diabetes is a function of insulin resistance, which in turn is a diet-induced condition. Obesity, high blood pressure and high blood sugar are also signs of metabolic syndrome, a group of risk factors that raise your risk of diabetes.¹

Processed foods loaded with added sugars, processed grains and industrial processed omega-6 vegetable oils are the primary culprits that trigger insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and obesity, and while cutting out toxic foods such as these is essential, adding in healthy foods, like certain fruits, can be beneficial.

Optimizing your nutrition can help lower your insulin level, stabilize your glucose level and improve your overall energy. Fortunately, making small positive dietary changes, including eating more of certain healthy fruits, may help reduce your risk of diabetes and lower your blood pressure.

The Mighty Avocado Helps Lower Blood Sugar

Legend has it the early name for avocados — “alligator pear” — came from an early English mispronunciation and misunderstanding.² The name may have continued since the skin has a vaguely reptilian appearance and the fruit is shaped like a pear. But no matter the name or appearance, avocados are superfoods that may also help lower your blood sugar.

Paul Spagnuolo, Ph.D., and a team at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, revealed that a compound called avocation B, found only in avocados, can beneficially alter cellular processes that increase the risk of diabetes.^3,4 In Canada, 25% of citizens are obese. This is a condition that increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes. By comparison, the prevalence of obesity in the U.S. was 42.4% in 2018.⁵

The team began the study by feeding mice a high-fat diet for eight weeks, which triggered obesity and insulin resistance. Over the next five weeks, the mice were separated into two groups. One group continued the high-fat diet and the other group’s food was supplemented with avocatin B.⁶

At the end of the five weeks, the researchers found the mice that were treated with avocatin B had gained significantly less weight than the control group and, more importantly, had a higher insulin sensitivity.⁷

The team then went on to test supplements in a human clinical trial in which they gave avocatin B as a dietary supplement to participants who were eating a typical Western diet. They found weight reductions in the individuals and no effect on the kidney, liver or skeletal muscles from the supplement. While speaking to Nutrition Insight, Spagnolo warned:⁸

“We want to stress that the benefit of this molecule is in its ability to help regulate blood glucose. Reductions in weight are likely a secondary effect. We realize that this is a desirable feature for most, however, urge caution for weight loss as the sole indication.”

Spagnuolo also spoke with a reporter from Yahoo! Life about the bioactive ingredient, avocatin B. He believes avocados are a healthy addition to the diet for people with diabetes and prediabetes, explaining:⁹

"When we talk about bioactives, think of it like the nutrients we get from other foods: we get Omega-3 fatty acids from eating fish and Vitamin C from oranges. AvoB is a bioactive ingredient in avocados, which can be an important dietary choice for diabetics and prediabetics.

When your metabolism is working, everything is in balance. You have ideal levels of blood sugar, good cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. … Science tells us that blood sugar imbalances can have a profound and negative impact on our health.

They can impact our energy levels, concentration, mood, and much more. And for diabetics, unbalanced blood sugars could lead to even more serious health complications like heart attack and stroke."

While the avocado is one of the healthiest foods, rich in monounsaturated fat, fiber, magnesium, potassium, vitamin K and carotenoids, there is also a dark side. Each avocado requires 70 liters (18.49 gallons) of water to produce, which means the fruit can be environmentally destructive. Read more about the challenge and what you can do to support sustainable methods for growing avocados at “Avocado — Superfood and Environmental Killer.”

High Flavanol Diet May Help Lower Blood Pressure

People with metabolic syndrome also have difficulty regulating their blood pressure. In what researchers called the first-of-its-kind study in the U.K., scientists used objective measures for dietary intake across thousands of residents, using data for 25,618 people in Norfolk, U.K., and compared the data against their blood pressure measurements.¹⁰

Most other studies look at links between nutrition and health but rely on the study participants’ self-reported data. In this analysis, the researchers measured the participants' flavanol intake using nutritional biomarkers present in the blood. They then compared those against their blood pressure measurements.¹¹

The data revealed blood pressure measurement differences between people with the highest 10% of flavanols as compared to the lowest 10% between 2 and 4 mmHg. The researchers wrote this was comparable to the difference measured when a person switched to a Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet.

Nutritionist Gunter Kuhnle at the University of Reading led the study. He talked about the importance of how the data were collected and the implications for consistent dietary intake of foods with flavanols, saying:¹²

"Previous studies of large populations have always relied on self-reported data to draw conclusions, but this is the first epidemiological study of this scale to objectively investigate the association between a specific bioactive compound and health. We are delighted to see that in our study, there was also a meaningful and significant association between flavanol consumption and lower blood pressure.

What this study gives us is an objective finding about the association between flavanols — found in tea and some fruits — and blood pressure. This research confirms the results from previous dietary intervention studies and shows that the same results can be achieved with a habitual diet rich in flavanols. In the British diet, the main sources are tea, cocoa, apples and berries.”

The subclass of flavanols measured in the study were flavan-3-ols,¹³ commonly found in tea, berries, apples and cocoa-based products.¹⁴ These same flavonoids have demonstrated benefits in other studies.¹⁵

Researchers have found those who drank tea consistently had a lower risk of all-cause mortality and were free of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for 1.41 years longer than those who did not drink tea.¹⁶ Of the tea tested, green tea was the most healthful. Green tea has also been linked with other health benefits that I discuss in “Tea Drinkers Shown To Be More Healthy.”

The High Cost of Diabetes

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that diabetes affected 25.8 million people in the U.S.¹⁷ This was 18.8 million who were diagnosed and 7 million who were undiagnosed, representing 8.3% of the population. A short nine years later those numbers had jumped drastically higher.

The CDC currently reports 34.2 million people with diabetes, 26.9 million of which are diagnosed and 7.3 million are undiagnosed.¹⁸ The total represents 10.5% of the U.S. population. They also estimate the number of people with prediabetes who are over 18 years as 88 million people or 34.5% of the adult population.

In total, 45% of the U.S. population is affected by diabetes or prediabetes, which can lead to long-term complications including cardiovascular disease, nerve damage and Alzheimer’s disease.¹⁹

The combination of many individuals with diabetes and the number of complications associated with the condition contribute to the staggering financial costs of the disease. According to the American Diabetes Association, people with diabetes have 2.3 times more health care costs than those without diabetes.²⁰

Annually, this totals $327 billion, which means 1 in every 7 health care dollars is spent on treating people for diabetes and its complications. The largest expenditures are on inpatient care, prescription medications, diabetes supplies and physician office visits. There are also indirect costs to the individuals and employers, including $26.9 billion lost in reduced productivity and $3.3 billion lost in absenteeism.

Address Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Insulin Sensitivity

At the center of the pathology behind diabetes is mitochondrial dysfunction. Eating a high-carbohydrate diet that bathes your mitochondria in glucose can suppress mitochondrial metabolism.²¹

As I've written before, your mitochondria are energy producers inside most of your cells and are the primary sources of energy to keep your body functioning. Mitochondrial dysfunction is at the heart of several disease pathologies, including cardiovascular diseases²² and neurological dysfunction.²³

While there is no easy answer, I believe the foundational first step to addressing metabolic defects responsible for mitochondrial dysfunction, Type 2 diabetes and obesity is to make food choices that boost mitochondrial health. I discussed this in detail in my book Fat for Fuel.

In my book I discussed the importance of metabolic flexibility and insulin sensitivity. Achieving this through nutritional ketosis helps to support your mitochondrial health. To reverse Type 2 diabetes, you need to recover insulin and leptin sensitivities.

The best way to address those metabolic conditions is through proper diet and exercise as I detail in my free nutritional plan. You'll find further suggestions to optimize your health and improve your insulin sensitivity, including optimizing gut flora, monitoring fasting insulin levels and sleep requirements in “Diabetes Has Become One of the Most Expensive and Lethal Diseases in the World.”

As for fruit consumption, eating small amounts can be an excellent way to increase your intake of beneficial antioxidants, vitamins and minerals. But moderation is key, especially if you have metabolic syndrome, high blood pressure and/or Type 2 diabetes.

Because fruit contains fructose, it can increase your risk of insulin resistance if you eat large amounts. Examples of lower fructose fruits that are beneficial for most people include avocados, berries, kiwi and citrus fruits.

from Articles https://ift.tt/36B0nJC
via IFTTT